Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Ganga Sagar Singh Son of Late Saryug Das & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 332 & 89 of 2017
Decided On : 15-03-2018
Arms Act - Conviction under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA), 26(1) and (2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA), and 26(1) and (2) of the Arms Act, 1959. It highlighted the elements of the offenses, the requirement of cogent evidence, and the interpretation of the provisions to determine the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for possession of firearms under the Arms Act, based on the recovery of weapons and cash. The prosecution's case was supported by witness statements and expert testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of one appellant under Section 25(1-B)(a) but set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 25(1-AA) and 26(1) and (2) for lack of justification. The other appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside due to insufficient evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness statements, the sufficiency of evidence for different offenses under the Arms Act, and the interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for cogent evidence to support convictions under the Arms Act and interpreted the elements of the offenses under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA), and 26(1) and (2) to determine the appellants' guilt.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of one appellant under Section 25(1-B)(a) were upheld, while the convictions and sentences under other sections were set aside. The other appellant's conviction and sentence were also set aside.
Both the appeals, viz. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 332 of 2017 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 89 of 2017 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants/Ganga Sagar Singh and Arun Singh have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA) and 26(1) and (2) of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short “the Act”) by judgment dated 07.12.2016, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2015, arising out of Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2014, and by order dated 08.12.2016, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offences under Sections 25(1-AA) and 26(1) and (2) of the Act. In the event of non-payment of the total amount of fine of Rs. 35,000/-, the appellants have been directed to suffer further simple imprisonment for 5 years.
3. The appellant/Ganga Sagar Singh (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 332 of 2017) was found to be in possession of a bag containing three country made pistols. From the possession of the appellant/Arun Singh (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 89 of 2017), Rs. 10,000/- was recovered.
4. The case of the prosecution is based on the self-statement of Abhinav Kumar Dubey, S.H.O., Munger Muffasil Police Station, who has been examined as P.W. 3 at the trial. He has alleged that on secret information that arms are being sold, he raided the orchard near Polytechnic College at village-Keshopur where the police team saw two persons, out of whom, one was carrying a bag. Seeing the police party, the aforesaid two persons started to run away from that place. They were nabbed by the police party and they disclosed their names as that of the appellants. From the possession of the appellant/Ganga Sagar Singh, as stated earlier, three pistol were recovered, whereas from the possession of the appellant/Arun Singh, Rs. 10,000/- only was recovered. It was stated in the self-statement that the aforesaid two persons disclosed that the arms so recovered was sold by the appellant/Arun Singh to the appellant/Ganga Sagar Singh. Appellant/Ganga Sagar Singh has also confessed that if his house is raided, some cartridges also can be recovered.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid self-statement of P.W. 3, a case vide Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2014, dated 30.03.2014, was instituted for investigation under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA) and 26(1) and (2) of the Act.
6. At the trial, eight prosecution witnesses were examined including the Investigating Officer/Ram Pukar Singh (P.W. 7) and the Sergeant Major/Dinesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 6), the expert who had examined and verified the firearm weapons recovered from the possession of the appellant/Ganga Sagar Singh.
7. The informant of this case (P.W. 3) has supported the prosecution version about the recovery of the weapons, described in the self-statement. He has proved the seizure-list (Ext.-1) and the First Information Report (Ext.-4).
8. Similar statements have been made by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the Chowkidar and the Dafadar of the case respectively, who were made witnesses to the search and seizure.
9. Dinesh Kumar Singh/P.W. 6 in his deposition before the Trial Court has proved the fact that he had examined all the seized arms and found the hammer, trigger and the fire pin to be in working condition. The other articles which were recovered were opined by him to be capable of being used in the manufacturing of arms.
10. The Investigating Officer of this case (P.W. 7) claims to have recorded the statement of the members of the raiding party and had also inspected the arms and had given the same for its verification and report to the Sergeant Major. After the report was received, he obtained the sanction from the District Magistrate, Munger. He found the appellant/Ganga Sagar Singh to be involved
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
